All in agreement

[nobspeople]

Back in the day, when I was a wee lad, the preacher in the church I attended left without a permanent replacement. The board interviewed a few candidates and, eventually, filtered them out to two individuals. The board had to vote which one to offer the position. I remember something one of the board members, Scott, said to this day. He said, something to the like of:
"If we're in Christ, we will all vote the same way. It will either be all YES or all NO, but we all will vote the same."

Is that something, IYO, that is not only feasible but likely? Should all governing bodies of said church be so in tune with God that they will all agree (or disagree) on the same items that involve the church and its teaching/mission?

If so, does that negate their free will?

I God doesn't interact to make them all agree, does that mean God plays the majority? Or that whatever they're deciding isn't important enough?

[bjs1]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

I dont know how likely it is, but I consider it theologically unsound. Unity is not uniformity. It is possible that both choices were acceptable to God and the difference was style instead of substance. Throughout the Bible God often involves people in the choices He makes. If we believe that supplication as outlined in the Lords Prayer is a valid aspect of prayer then we should not remove human involvement in Gods choices.

Most significantly from my perspective, Scott was looking for an easy way out. Unity is easy when everyone agrees. From my experience and study, I have found that God desires people to do the work unity requires even (and especially) when they dont agree. When a body of believers makes a choice that a minority disagrees with, as long as that choice is not sinful, then Christian unity means the dissenting minority still supports that decision. I am not saying that they have to agree with the decision, but they should let go of that disagreement to support the work of the church. Its harder that way than when everyone agrees from the start, but moral strength is built during the difficult times.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

I dont know how likely it is, but I consider it theologically unsound. Unity is not uniformity. It is possible that both choices were acceptable to God and the difference was style instead of substance. Throughout the Bible God often involves people in the choices He makes. If we believe that supplication as outlined in the Lords Prayer is a valid aspect of prayer then we should not remove human involvement in Gods choices.

Most significantly from my perspective, Scott was looking for an easy way out. Unity is easy when everyone agrees. From my experience and study, I have found that God desires people to do the work unity requires even (and especially) when they dont agree. When a body of believers makes a choice that a minority disagrees with, as long as that choice is not sinful, then Christian unity means the dissenting minority still supports that decision. I am not saying that they have to agree with the decision, but they should let go of that disagreement to support the work of the church. Its harder that way than when everyone agrees from the start, but moral strength is built during the difficult times.

All that said, is it possible that a group makes a decision, for God's church, that isn't what God wants?
Assuming the answer is yes, then does God rectify this wrong decision?
Again, assuming yes (eventually), what happens to those that may be harmed before God rectifies this wrong decision?
Example:
The board approves a new preacher that is not what God wants.
The preacher is there for 2 months.
During those two months, the preacher causes a certain % of the congregation to leave, potentially leaving Christianity (his personality was bad, he offended them, they felt physically threatened, whatever).
Out of that %, a few people never go back to Christianity and die in sin shortly after.

Who is ultimately responsible for them dying in sin? God, who could have help the board pick a different preacher, the board for not listening to God or the individuals who, despite trying to learn from the new preacher, was so turned off they left the faith entirely, dying in sin?

[bjs1]

All that said, is it possible that a group makes a decision, for God's church, that isn't what God wants?
Assuming the answer is yes, then does God rectify this wrong decision?
Again, assuming yes (eventually), what happens to those that may be harmed before God rectifies this wrong decision?
Example:
The board approves a new preacher that is not what God wants.
The preacher is there for 2 months.
During those two months, the preacher causes a certain % of the congregation to leave, potentially leaving Christianity (his personality was bad, he offended them, they felt physically threatened, whatever).
Out of that %, a few people never go back to Christianity and die in sin shortly after.

Who is ultimately responsible for them dying in sin? God, who could have help the board pick a different preacher, the board for not listening to God or the individuals who, despite trying to learn from the new preacher, was so turned off they left the faith entirely, dying in sin?

The people are ultimately responsible.

We are all responsible for our own choices. This especially true in the situation described here. Someone who abandons the faith because he/she disliked a certain preacher never had much of a faith to begin with. If this has happened over the course of just two month then I would question if that individual ever had even the most elementary understanding of the faith.

[nobspeople]

All that said, is it possible that a group makes a decision, for God's church, that isn't what God wants?
Assuming the answer is yes, then does God rectify this wrong decision?
Again, assuming yes (eventually), what happens to those that may be harmed before God rectifies this wrong decision?
Example:
The board approves a new preacher that is not what God wants.
The preacher is there for 2 months.
During those two months, the preacher causes a certain % of the congregation to leave, potentially leaving Christianity (his personality was bad, he offended them, they felt physically threatened, whatever).
Out of that %, a few people never go back to Christianity and die in sin shortly after.

Who is ultimately responsible for them dying in sin? God, who could have help the board pick a different preacher, the board for not listening to God or the individuals who, despite trying to learn from the new preacher, was so turned off they left the faith entirely, dying in sin?

The people are ultimately responsible.

We are all responsible for our own choices. This especially true in the situation described here. Someone who abandons the faith because he/she disliked a certain preacher never had much of a faith to begin with. If this has happened over the course of just two month then I would question if that individual ever had even the most elementary understanding of the faith.

We are responsible for our actions. Surely no one (seemingly) forced them to leave. But at some point, God could have intervened at some point if it was something he didn't like one would think.
But, then again, he didn't with Adam and Eve so maybe we shouldn't expect anything different with us.

If they left because the preacher was physically or sexually abusive (or something equally bad), which led to their dismissal of their faith for obvious reasons...seems pretty harsh to only blame them.

But, here we are again: priest molesting kids and it's the kids' fault some say - a simple 'move the priest form here to there' seems to be an attempt to negotiate around the issue without placing blame.

It almost seems as if God set everything in motion, let us to our own devices and then punishes (in some fashion) when we don't do his bidding.
That's a job everyone wants: have all the power to create and absolutely zero responsibility in the end.
Where so I send my resume?!?

[brunumb]

It is possible that both choices were acceptable to God and the difference was style instead of substance. Throughout the Bible God often involves people in the choices He makes.

When that choice turns out to be a sexual predator or pedophile, surely the involvement of God in the decision making process would have helped protect his flock. We seem to get never ending excuses that whitewash this ever-loving God and regularly put all the bad things on the shoulders of human beings. As far as I am concerned this deity is at least guilty of depraved indifference.

Throughout the Bible, unless natural events like floods and plagues are involved, God invariably works through human intermediaries. Given that, you can't help but wonder if there isn't really a god there at all, just human beings exercising a useful tool to manipulate and control others.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to brunumb in post #6]

When that choice turns out to be a sexual predator or pedophile, surely the involvement of God in the decision making process would have helped protect his flock.

One would think, but then...

We seem to get never ending excuses that whitewash this ever-loving God and regularly put all the bad things on the shoulders of human beings.

Yes. All the time. People even create groups like Creationism to deal with such things. If it wasn't so damaging it would be amazing.

As far as I am concerned this deity is at least guilty of depraved indifference.

I think any logical person would see it this way.

you can't help but wonder if there isn't really a god there at all, just human beings exercising a useful tool to manipulate and control others.

That's what religion does, after all.

[JehovahsWitness]

Should all governing bodies of said church be so in tune with God that they will all agree (or disagree) on the same items that involve the church and its teaching/mission?

No I don't think so. The biblical precedent we have is found Jerusalem counsel in Acts 15. The members of the first century governing body did not seem to approach the question of circumcission with their minds already made up in unison. They listened to the various arguments, studied the scriptures and prayed about the matter.

As somebody has already said, the unity came, not necessary having no opposing opinions in their number, but that the entire body supported the final decison when the votes where in.

JW


FURTHER READING: What Is the Governing Body of Jehovahs Witnesses?
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesse ... w-helpers/

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES , FINANCES and ... CHURCH LEADERSHIP

[nobspeople]

Should all governing bodies of said church be so in tune with God that they will all agree (or disagree) on the same items that involve the church and its teaching/mission?

No I don't think so. The biblical precedent we have is found Jerusalem counsel in Acts 15. The members of the first century governing body did not seem to approach the question of circumcission with their minds already made up in unison. They listened to the various arguments, studied the scriptures and prayed about the matter.

As somebody has already said, the unity came, not necessary having no opposing opinions in their number, but that the entire body supported the final decison.

Curious: if unity eventually came, how did that happen? Did God tweak people's minds to agree at the end?

[JehovahsWitness]

Should all governing bodies of said church be so in tune with God that they will all agree (or disagree) on the same items that involve the church and its teaching/mission?

No I don't think so. The biblical precedent we have is found Jerusalem counsel in Acts 15. The members of the first century governing body did not seem to approach the question of circumcission with their minds already made up in unison. They listened to the various arguments, studied the scriptures and prayed about the matter.

As somebody has already said, the unity came, not necessary having no opposing opinions in their number, but that the entire body supported the final decison.

Curious: if unity eventually came, how did that happen? Did God tweak people's minds to agree at the end?

We believe it comes to them, as it comes to the entire international brotherhood of God's people: from recognising the authority of God's word and submitting to the power of God's holy spirit.

No mind control needed.




JW